My mom used to tell me, "Anyone can make a promise, but most people forget them on purpose." Thus far, state Democrats have fallen into the latter category, and Wisconsin voters are coming to the painful realization that their government is incapable of holding itself to the high standards it promises every four years.
In an election season dominated by allegations of unproductive partisanship and special-interest pandering by Republican majorities, state Democrats prevailed by emphasizing the intrinsic value of civility. Now, just a few short weeks into this legislative session, Democrats have added to the crisis in decorum that plagued the Republican state Senate majority.
First is the inexplicable support for the "Frankenstein veto" from the left. The provision allows the governor to combine unrelated sentences in a bill and give life to dead proposals. Because this power is part of the state Constitution, it must pass through the Legislature twice before being put before voters in a referendum. It passed last time, but with a newfound majority, Senate Democrats decided not to schedule a vote on the measure.
For those of you wondering about the difference in Democratic philosophy between opposition to President Bush's abuse of "signing statements" — in which he redefines the intent of federal legislation — and support for executive overreach in Wisconsin, the answer is simple. In this case, a Democrat, Gov. Jim Doyle, is the executive officer. This brand of shortsighted partisan maneuvering continues to dominate government at every level, despite all the sunny talk about bipartisanship in November.
Democrats, who promised the voters tangible change in a political discourse tainted with obsessive partisan rancor, ought to be embarrassed with their efforts thus far. Bipartisanship is more than a speech, smile and a handshake. Sometimes it takes real sacrifice, and the ability to perceive political gains in the public interest that go beyond the next election cycle.
The same goes for the broken state sick-leave policy that allows legislators — who almost never officially declare illness — to cash in benefits that roll over from year to year. In some cases, legislative veterans cash in millions for health-care accounts upon retirement. Meanwhile, too many hard-working Wisconsin families are trapped in a stagnant health-care system that makes it nearly impossible to buy any sort of insurance.
Many against revising the sick-leave system argue that it will make it harder for qualified yet cash-strapped residents to run for office. This is a valid dilemma that campaign-finance reform legislation has yet to solve. In a capitalist society, how do we get the best and brightest to enter the realm of public service before they are picked off by business interests — Nevertheless, a backhanded money-laundering scheme masquerading as sick leave is not a principled way to solve this problem, nor will it instill public trust in our politicians.
Of course, state Republicans are at fault for this breakdown, as well. After debate on a sick-leave policy change, committee chair Rep. Mark Honadel, R-South Milwaukee, called for an immediate vote that was in violation of his own rules. In response, Rep. Terry Van Akkeren, D-Sheboygan, objected and voted against the proposal in committee to protest the change. "At the meeting's conclusion, Akkeren tore up Honadel's procedural rules and walked out of the room," according to a Badger Herald news report. Mr. Honadel's attempt to score political points by calling an immediate vote on a "no-brainer" and his subsequent refusal to respect the wishes of a legitimate objector are festering examples of state Republicans' inability to maintain the basic civility voters demand.
Despite all of this legislative buffoonery, there are bright spots in Wisconsin's political dialogue. For example, the myriad groups promoting new state health-care systems hold open meetings to establish contacts while promoting their own plans. Former state budget director David Reimer has sought bipartisan support for his pending Wisconsin Health Plan, and stresses that it can change to become more agreeable to state Republicans, despite Reimer's own Democratic stripes. Further, when I gave Ann Fleischli — an attorney advocating for Wisconsin Health Care for All's "Provide or Pay" plan — the chance to criticize opposing plans, this is all she offered:
"Until the political climate statewide changes, our proposal is probably the only approach that would work," Fleischli said before adding a note for camaraderie. "We of course wish everyone good luck."
The state Legislature could learn a lesson in civility from these local policy wonks.
Bassey Etim ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in political science and journalism.
